First custom computer, has to last me at least 5 years
- Thread starter CSpanky
- Start date
unless you have like $300 to spend on a SSD or dont plan on having a lot of files you wont replace the HDD with a SSD. you would still have a HDD for files you dont use as often but you would get something like a 60GB SSD for $100 or so and put your OS and a few games or other programs that you want to load fast.
and you are write about the wireless card. ive just had a hard time in the past so i stay away from it.
and you are write about the wireless card. ive just had a hard time in the past so i stay away from it.
wolfeking
banned
AMD is like G-D on this site. Really it just comes down to brand loyalty. AMD by its design as a budget CPU (the roots if the brand) runs hotter than intel. However that is nothing that an aftermarket CPU cooler can not fix.
Sound card really comes down to preferance. The built in is good, but you can really get in oerson type of sound with some good quality speakers and a sound card. I personally have a Rocketfish 5.1 channel PCI sound card and it works fine, but I am waiting on some good speakers to really set it to life.
But even if I didn't grab one the computer I built would be quick? I only will be using a couple programs, need them to run at tip top speeds!
Can you elaborate on your problems with the wireless cards? I mean I will literally be either 20 feet away from the router (my room to kitchen area), or when they move it to upstairs it'll be like 30 feet (right above me)... so just wondering what my best option is
Only reason they don't want to change the router is for my ps3 none of the brand name routers would work as far as my "NAT type"...so we've been using the internet companies with no problems, runs fast, etc...so I'm trying not to change that
Drenlin
Active Member
^Yes, it'll still be quick with a non-SSD. Just make sure you get a good hard drive. WD Caviar Black and Samsung Spinpoint F3 are the best deals right now.
I don't see why a wireless card would be a problem, as long as the router and card both have good range.
Do what? AMD just has a good market position right now. If Intel was offering chips that powerful at the same price, with such a good upgrade path, we'd all be recommending them instead. Go to any computer related forum and ask for a build below $800 or so, and they're going to pick AMD every time. Intel doesn't really have a huge advantage in terms of power/price until you get above $1200 or so. Further, AMD's current processors will most likely be compatible with their next gen motherboards, but Intel is completely killing off their current sockets, so AMD's upgrade path is significantly better. It's even possible that the upcoming llano chip will run on existing AM3 boards.
And no, they're not "rooted" in budget systems. Back when the Athlon first came out, it kicked the Pentium III's ass nine ways from Sunday. Athlon XP vs Pentium 4 wasn't even a contest. And if you do some research, Intel has had to copy or emulate a lot of AMD's technologies to keep on top.
I don't see why a wireless card would be a problem, as long as the router and card both have good range.
Do what? AMD just has a good market position right now. If Intel was offering chips that powerful at the same price, with such a good upgrade path, we'd all be recommending them instead. Go to any computer related forum and ask for a build below $800 or so, and they're going to pick AMD every time. Intel doesn't really have a huge advantage in terms of power/price until you get above $1200 or so. Further, AMD's current processors will most likely be compatible with their next gen motherboards, but Intel is completely killing off their current sockets, so AMD's upgrade path is significantly better. It's even possible that the upcoming llano chip will run on existing AM3 boards.
And no, they're not "rooted" in budget systems. Back when the Athlon first came out, it kicked the Pentium III's ass nine ways from Sunday. Athlon XP vs Pentium 4 wasn't even a contest. And if you do some research, Intel has had to copy or emulate a lot of AMD's technologies to keep on top.
Last edited:
Drenlin
Active Member
A "budget" brand, by today's common usage of the term, would be a company that makes a lower quality product for a lower price, which is not the case. They're usually better than Intel at the same price point, or very close.
Perhaps we're misunderstanding each other?
Perhaps we're misunderstanding each other?
Last edited:
wolfeking
banned
I understand you.
By BUDGET, I mean that they are more affordable. No one is arguing that point. I am not saying that their desktop product is sub-par to Intel. (I firmly believe based off of personal experience that the AMD notebook lineup is a horrible product. (( 6 CPU failures of 8 that I have owned or still own. 0 of 5 with intel)) )
By BUDGET, I mean that they are more affordable. No one is arguing that point. I am not saying that their desktop product is sub-par to Intel. (I firmly believe based off of personal experience that the AMD notebook lineup is a horrible product. (( 6 CPU failures of 8 that I have owned or still own. 0 of 5 with intel)) )
The only reply I have for that is wrong or false. That is unless you think AMD and Intel just came out with processors 4 years ago. You are either very young or just started learning about computers.
Hell a FX-60/62 when first released were 1000 bucks.
If you want to argue the point with each model and over the years, go for it! When AMD had Intel beat clock for clock, Intel was a budget processor as far as price.
Last edited:
wolfeking
banned
You obviously didn't read farther down. AMD has always been cheaper for the same performance than intel. As per that, a budget unit. I was not saying that the desktop unit is a bad quality unit compared to Intel.
Budget definition: reasonably or cheaply priced
source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/budget?&qsrc=
I dont need to read futher down. Your WRONG, get it. Between 1999 and 2006 AMD clock for clock was faster and more expensive.
A XP Athlon 3200 at 2.2 ghz. cost more and was equal in performance wise then a P4 3.0/3.2ghz.
From the AMD XP Athlon all the way till the Intel Core 2 was released. AMD was more expensive clock for clock. Intel was the budget processor for 6 years. Your history is screwed up.
Last edited:
Thanks (didn't mean to start a war) haha
Your choice. We can talk models from the Intel Pentium I and AMD K-5. As far as price and performance clock for clock.
Welllll...what do you recommend? Decent brand please
In your price range you can go with either. A good Intel i5 or Phenom II X4/X6 setup could fit. In the 650/800 dollar range is really personal decision/toss up.
Drenlin
Active Member
Eh...no? Most people don't have over a 10Mb internet connection. Wireless G is 54Mb. Wireless N is faster, with better range. As long as you're not too far away, it'll be fine.